Don't cross my path!: Superstitions may seem daft, but maybe there's more to it.
Credit: iStockphoto
SYDNEY: Superstitions, such as touching wood or avoiding the path of black cats, are seemingly irrational, but may have their roots in behaviours which evolved to protect us from danger, says a new study.
The research published in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B reports evidence that a predisposition to incorrectly link cause and effect can sometimes be useful.
Kevin Foster, co-author of the study and evolutionary biologist at Harvard University in Massachusetts, U.S., was intrigued by the number and variety of documented human superstitions.
Daft beliefs
"I was reading a number of popular books that mostly portrayed superstitions as crazy and irrational… we then went to the scientific literature in psychology and sociology and found the same story," said Foster. "This made us wonder: why would evolution lead to us having so many seemingly daft beliefs? Could there be a rational explanation behind the most irrational aspect of human psychology?"
To investigate further, Foster worked with Hanna Kokko of the University of Helsinki, in Finland, to devise a complex computer model that aimed to compare scenarios where an animal would link two events together; such as linking the sound of rustling grass to the approach of a predator.
In some situations, these were linked by cause and effect, in others they were spuriously linked (such as when the rustling is caused by wind and not a predator). The scientists explored the idea that incorrect associations between events can be beneficial as long as they don't cost anything, and they lead to occasional correct associations that might save an animal's life.
The mathematical model showed us that "it is worth carrying many mistaken beliefs just to ensure you get the important ones right," said Foster. For example, even if an animal is often frightened by rustling grass caused by wind, if that causes it to avoid a predator in the grass on just one occasion, it may be enough to save its life.
A relevant human example is that of a primitive tribe using a whole range of medicinal plants even if only very few work as an effective treatment, he said.
Does this explain Human behviour, though?
While it may be true that touching wood, or not stepping on cracks has no real 'cost' to the subject, it has no conceivable benefit either. So unless this research simply explains "People may sometimes do small things in the name of superstition, this is why", it doesn't really answer why these specific superstitions have garnered a following -- or, more importantly, why humans do things which require huge amounts of 'cost', like adhering to life-altering religions.
Possibly...
Perhaps a crack indicated a weakness or fault in a path, and if you stepped on it it might give way and you would fall through. Perhaps touching wood derived from hiding behind a tree. And perhaps life-altering religions defined some rules of behavior that permitted groups of people to co-exist.
Statistics
I think this study is more along the lines of a statistical study in that if you look at an individual event you cannot draw any worthwhile conclusion but over a large(r) sample then you should be able to pick a general trend.
Granville
"Super" is the problem still
That these behaviors are meant to shield us from possible harm is good, that this is of "supernatural" affiliation is the problem still.